Exemption Requests Granted: The court allowed various applications for exemption, allowing the petitions to be disposed of collectively due to their identical nature.

Nature of the Grievances: The petitioners sought a writ of mandamus to compel the Dental Council of India (DCI) to recognize their MDS degrees. They also requested compensation for financial losses incurred due to the delays in degree recognition, which they argued violated their rights to livelihood and dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution.

Background of the Case: Each petitioner had completed a Bachelor’s degree in Dental Surgery and successfully qualified for the NEET-MDS 2020 exam. They were subsequently admitted to the MDS program at PDM Dental College. After completing their examinations, they faced delays in the scheduling of practical exams and subsequently received provisional certificates, only to be informed later that their degrees would not be recognized due to the college's unrecognized status by the DCI.

Regulatory Framework: Petitioners' counsel argued that the DCI was mandated to recognize degrees as per Regulation 23 of the Master of Dental Surgery Course Regulations, 2017. They contended that the refusal to recognize the degrees infringed upon their rights and was contrary to established regulations.

Counterarguments: The DCI's counsel contended that the college was embroiled in multiple legal issues, including land disputes and financial difficulties, which affected its recognition status. They suggested that the petitioners should seek redress in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, arguing that jurisdictional issues existed because the college was located outside the court's jurisdiction.

Territorial Jurisdiction: The court examined whether it had the jurisdiction to entertain the writ petitions. It referenced established legal precedents indicating that a court may decline to exercise jurisdiction if a substantial part of the cause of action arises outside its territorial limits, even if a minor part occurs within its jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The court ultimately dismissed the petitions on jurisdictional grounds, emphasizing the ongoing legal complexities surrounding the college's recognition. The petitioners were advised to seek resolution in the appropriate jurisdiction where the college was located.

This ruling underscores the importance of understanding the implications of territorial jurisdiction in legal proceedings, particularly for educational institutions facing recognition issues. It also highlights the necessity for students to ensure the legitimacy of their educational institutions before enrollment to avoid potential challenges in degree recognition.

The decision serves as a critical reminder of the intricate relationship between educational policy, legal frameworks, and the rights of students in seeking employment and recognition in their respective fields.